Why would the owner publically order the building be demolished when it’s all supposed to be a secret conspiracy? He was talking about “pulling” the firefighters.

How in God’s name would the BBC know that the building would be demolished and why would they report it early anyway? Are you suggesting that the BBC are psychic? Or that they are in on the conspiracy and goofed up by reporting it early? This example is clearly a misinterpretation of the facts because the argument doesn’t support a conspiracy at all. What kind of conspiracy holds water when the “facts” of the mystery show that the foreign press has prescient information about the inner workings of the conspiracy itself?

Wasn’t the building on fire? Yes it was. The building collapsed, the fires kept burning, moltent steel.

Explain to me how WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into it’s footprint while it was not struck by a plane.

I will…

But you need to explain why would Bush, Cheney (since in another post you speculated that is who was behind 9/11) and now apparently Silverstein blow up WTC 7 if they knew they weren’t going to have a jet fly into it. If they meticulously planned everything the way they would have had to in order to pull off the events of 9/11, why would they make such a huge glaring mistake as to plant explosives in a building they knew was not going to be hit by a jet?

And secondly you will need to explain why no one in WTC 7 in the days before 9/11 saw anyone cutting supports, drilling holes in concrete, planting explosives in those holes and running wires to detonators anywhere in WTC 7 (or the WTC towers for that matter), since that is how buildings are demolished via explosives.

Could you answer those questions?

Now, on to how and why WTC 7 collapsed:

Simple answer – it was damaged from the debris from the WTC towers.

As for specifics:

WTC 7 was hit by the large perimeter columns of the main Tower’s collapse. Nearly one third (from the center mid point to the bottom (about 10 stories) was gouged out around ¼ of the way into the building.

Engineers report that what is called “progressive collapse” is what doomed WTC 7. This is when small parts of the whole fail one after another leading to a strain that causes the whole not to be able to stand up. This is combined with the fact that the columns near the damaged areas carried exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. The loss of just one column on one of the lower floors can cause a vertical progression of collapse. There was also a fire in the building that burned for 7 hours fed by various diesel generators and one large diesel tank in the basement fed by a pressurize line.

Take a look for yourself:

baffledking - 17 July 2007 09:25 PM

And why did BBC report on its collapse before it actually came down?

Are you suggesting that the BBC was in on it?
Assuming the BBC did report this, the most obvious answer is that in the confusion of the day (do you even remember how hectic things were on that day!), the falable human reporters going on 2nd and 3rd hand information made a mistake. It is similar to the “Fog of War.” I still remember watching NBC Nightly news on the start of the first Gulf War report that Iraq had fired missiles filled with chemical weapons at either coalition troops or Israel. Does that mean that Iraq really did launch chemical weapon missiles on the opening night of the first Gulf War just because a network news reported it? NBC made a mistake back then. It happens. And it especially happens in fast-paced life-and death situations like the Gulf War and 9/11. I can easily see someone seeing the damage on WTC 7 and saying something along the lines of, “That building is going to collapse,” and by the time that is overheard and makes it way to a reporter desperate to give out any information, they will report it.

baffledking - 17 July 2007 09:25 PM

Why did Larry Silverstein, the building’s owner, go on film admit to “pulling” the building down? Why was there molten steel at the bottom of the wreckage?

Silverstein was talking about the contingent of firefighters in the area.

Here is what Silverstein said [emphasis added to make clear what he himself has sine said about his own comments!]:

“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

Others used the term “pull” in describing getting the firefighters out of harm’s way [again, emphasis added]:

“They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn’t really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.”

—Richard Banaciski, Firefighter

“We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.”

—Chief Hayden

Signature

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

But you need to explain why would Bush, Cheney (since in another post you speculated that is who was behind 9/11) and now apparently Silverstein blow up WTC 7 if they knew they weren’t going to have a jet fly into it. If they meticulously planned everything the way they would have had to in order to pull off the events of 9/11, why would they make such a huge glaring mistake as to plant explosives in a building they knew was not going to be hit by a jet?

Fair question. Here again, you are asking me to speculate while I am more concerned with discussing scientifically provable information. But I don’t mind speculating when asked. If I remember correctly, I think the New York Times revealed in an Nov. 2001 article that WTC 7 housed offices for the CIA, Dept. of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and, I believe, some SEC criminal investigation files were also being stored there at the time. If it was an inside job, perhaps WTC 7 was destroyed to get rid of unwanted evidence. Seems plausible. Larry Silverstein, the building’s owner, also made an insurance profit of about $500 million, if I’m not mistaken.

And secondly you will need to explain why no one in WTC 7 in the days before 9/11 saw anyone cutting supports, drilling holes in concrete, planting explosives in those holes and running wires to detonators anywhere in WTC 7 (or the WTC towers for that matter), since that is how buildings are demolished via explosives.

That is not true. Marvin Bush, George W’s brother’s company Securacom controlled security for the buildings from 96-2001 and oversaw all renovations, upgrades etc…which is more than enough opportunity to plant explosives. Not proof, but evidence. I’m sure you’ve also heard about the reports from employees working in the buildings of unannounced power downs during the late summer of 2001. Again, not proof but evidence, nonetheless.

Here is a video of Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management. He says quite clearly that the buildings were designed to sustain multiple plane crashes. Tragically, DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11. I believe this interview clip was taken from a video made in early 2001: http://youtube.com/watch?v=scQPx539c7M

No. You don’t understand my question. Why wouldn’t Bush just have a 5th jet hijacked and fly it into WTC 7? If Bush truly is a a super-genius mastermind criminal villain that would rival anything out of a James Bond movie, and if he could have expertly orchestrated 9/11 to the extent that he made the whole world think what he wanted them to think happened that day, then he would not have left an obvious clue as to a building that just collapsed on its own. It would be as if a criminal went into a bank and shot every employee with a firearm, but one employee was shot with a crossbow. No one would do that. Not even if Bush were as stupid as some claim he is.

Signature

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

Fair question. Here again, you are asking me to speculate while I am more concerned with discussing scientifically provable information.

Speculation is what must happen when the general public makes scientific assumptions about an event without all the available details or the opinion of experts. What seems improbable or unlikely to an average person may not raise the slightest suspicion from someone who is an expert on the subject or the details of the situation.

Larry Silverstein, the building’s owner, also made an insurance profit of about $500 million, if I’m not mistaken.

Yes, but he has to pay 102 million annually in base rent, and it seems like a lot of trouble for him to destroy his own buildings… that he plans to rebuild now anyway.

[

b]That is not true. Marvin Bush, George W’s brother’s company Securacom controlled security for the buildings from 96-2001 and oversaw all renovations, upgrades etc…which is more than enough opportunity to plant explosives. Not proof, but evidence.

Actually that is not true. #1. He was a member of the board (not his company) until the year 2000 (not 2001). #2. They didn’t “control” security at all.

Alright, I was off by a year. Securacom (now Stratesec) did in fact provide electronic security to the WTC, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. It had a contract to handle a large portion of the security in the towers up to and including September 11th, 2001. Securacom was also backed by the Kuwait-American Corporation which is also linked to the Bush family. I find it odd that the 911 investigation failed to look at these ties in any detail.

And how do we know that Flight 93 was not destined for WTC 7 before it was shot down/crashed?

Why are we discussing the “ifs” when we should be discussing the facts? But if you prefer to deal in conditionals then maybe you can answer some of these questions.

Why were White House and Pentagon officials (among others) warned not to fly in the days leading up to 911?
Why was Bush allowed to sit in a Florida school and read a kids book while America was under attack? (why wasn’t he whisked away?)
How did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC on TV the day of 911 when the first crash wasn’t broadcast until September 12th?
Why were plans to invade Afghanistan ready to go long before 911 happened? And why were troops mobilized around Afghanistan days before the attack?
Why hasn’t the Pentagon released more and better footage of Flight 77 slamming into it’s side?
Why was there molten metal under the debris from the three WTC buildings, namely WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane?
Why has no other steel framed building in history collapsed from fire damage?
Why did BBC report on the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it fell?
Why did the 911 Commission report completely omit WTC 7 from it’s investigation?
Why were warnings made by British, French, Russian, Iranian and American intelligence agencies ignored?
Why did the government release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks? (video and voice analysts have proven its falsity)
Why weren’t standard emergency procedures followed by the Airforce during the attack?
What were all these explosions that people reported hearing prior to and during the collapses?

Why did BBC report on the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it fell?

The amount of destruction to WTC 7 from the falling WTC Towers could easily have been described by any witness as partially collapsed and be technically correct. And in the incredible confusion of the day, reporters getting hectic, 2nd and third hand information could have understandably gotten a quote from someone who said WTC 7 looked like it was about to collapse, and by the time it made it to air, reported that it had already collapsed. AFter all, it had a huge chunk taken out of it and it was burning for several hours.

Are you suggesting that the BBC was somehow in on it?!

You find me a news report several weeks before the attacks that named the places and targets and said they would be destroyed…then you would have evidence of a media organization with foreknowledge of the attacks. Something from the mass confusion of the day doesn’t cut it. Do you have something like this?

Signature

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

.
And how do we know that Flight 93 was not destined for WTC 7 before it was shot down/crashed?

Wait! Why would the same government that planned 9/11 shoot down one of the planes it had hijacked? You can’t have it both ways.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why were White House and Pentagon officials (among others) warned not to fly in the days leading up to 911?

I’m not saying they were and I’m not saying they were not because I don’t know if this is true. I take with a grain of salt about the size of the Twin Towers most everything that Conspiracy Sites say. But assuming they were, it could have been due to all the terrorist “chatter” that was coming in during the lead up to 9/11. And since this “chatter” was coming from known Muslim terrorists and not from the Bush White House, that would pretty much take Bush out of the position as a suspect for 9/11 and put it back to the Muslim terrorists. The news reports are now saying similar things about this summer. Would someone who heard this news and chose not to fly be considered by you to be a suspect?

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why was Bush allowed to sit in a Florida school and read a kids book while America was under attack? (why wasn’t he whisked away?)

What would you have wanted him to do? Jump up screaming and run out of the class scarring all the kids? Or remain calm under pressure? Besides, if Bush really was in on it (as you suggest elsewhere), why didn’t he plan it to make himself look better with his reaction? Many of the items you point out (like this one) do not implicate Bush, but clear him of complicity.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
How did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC on TV the day of 911 when the first crash wasn’t broadcast until September 12th?

Do you know how many people to this day, think they saw JFK shot live on TV? They never did. It wasn’t on TV. People’s memories are faulty - even a President’s. The events of that day and the days that follow were jumbled in many people’s minds. If I’m not mistaken, Bush said this months after the attacks! I’d wager you that almost any person asked today would say they saw both planes crash into the towers on the same day. Bush made a mistake. He has made plenty. One faulty memory months after the fact does not a conspiracy make.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why were plans to invade Afghanistan ready to go long before 911 happened? And why were troops mobilized around Afghanistan days before the attack?

All Presidents have contingency plans drawn up by the Military for potential foreign threats. Clinton had them for Iraq and had similar plans regarding bin Laden. Was Clinton in on this whole thing as well? If anything, this proves that the Taliban regime was the threat everyone says it was due to its harboring al-Qaeda.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why hasn’t the Pentagon released more and better footage of Flight 77 slamming into it’s side?

Even before 9/11 I can see why the Pentagon wouldn’t want dozens of video cameras aimed at it! Every tragedy doesn’t automatically have perfect video of it happening. Besides, there were plenty of eyewitnesses who saw the plane heading towards the Pentagon. If you are honestly suggesting it wasn’t a plane, then where in the hell did it and all its passengers go?

Besides, you later claim the government released a fake bin Laden tape. If the government had the ability and the desire to release a tape you say they faked, they could fake a tape of the plane hitting the Pentagon. When they release a tape you claim it is evidence of a conspiracy. When they don’t release a tape you also claim it is a conspiracy. You can’t have it both ways.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why was there molten metal under the debris from the three WTC buildings, namely WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane?

Because that building burned for 7 hours fed by several diesel generators and one large tank in the basement feeding the fire with a pressurized hose.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why has no other steel framed building in history collapsed from fire damage?

Because no other building has had hijacked jets purposefully flown into them. But if you insist on wanting a steel structure collapsing from fire, there is The East Bay’s MacArthur Maze Bay Bridge. A quote from the news story: “Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay’s MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below…” [Emphasis added.]

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why did BBC report on the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it fell?

Answered elsewhere. Besides, this does not prove foreknowledge of the attacks as it was reports of the day. Bring me something aired weeks before the attacks and then we can talk.

I can’t speak for them, but I can assume because it was not the intended target, as that was obviously the Towers themselves. Besides, the 9/11 Commission was Bi-Partisan. Are the Democrats in on it with Bush now? Just how big is this conspiracy? Is everyone in the U.S. in on it but you and me?

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why were warnings made by British, French, Russian, Iranian and American intelligence agencies ignored?

You’d have to be more specific. What warnings? When? And did they provide specific actionable intelligence? Besides, were these warnings about Muslim terrorists or were these warnings that President Bush was about to do something? Because if they were about Muslims, that would seem to let Bush off the hook.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why did the government release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks? (video and voice analysts have proven its falsity)

This was not a fake videotape. This is similar to the Moon Hoax people claiming that they have “analyzed” the Apollo videotapes to prove the Moon Landing never happened. Besides if Bush is so good at coordinating all the jets, explosives, hijackers, etc. of that day, then why didn’t he make a top-notch fake video of bin Laden? Answer: Because those predisposed to believe Bush did it will never believe any evidence pointing to bin Laden.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
Why weren’t standard emergency procedures followed by the Airforce during the attack?

I don’t know that they were and I don’t know that they were not. Can you provide a link to what the Air Force’s Standard Emergency Procedures were for terrorist hijacked planes in the U.S. skies? Assuming they weren’t it was probably bureaucratic bumbling. It is the government after all. They are not gods. Even the government makes mistakes every now and then. Besides, in your first question you suggest one of the hijacked planes was shot down. If it was, then that would mean the Air Force did its job. Once again, you provide two conflicting items and yet you view them both as pointing to a conspiracy. You can’t have it both ways.

baffledking - 19 July 2007 09:20 PM

.
What were all these explosions that people reported hearing prior to and during the collapses?

Ummm, could it have been the floors of the Towers hitting one another and the freaking building falling down?! It is a scientific fact that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I would imagine that earwitnesses are just as unreliable.

OK, I have answered your questions. I know you will not agree with them. But at least I answered them. So may I ask you to return the favor and answer these questions for me?

1.) Who killed the airline pilots, hijacked and flew the 4 planes on that day?

2.) Why did the Twin Towers just happen to collapse at the exact same point where each plane hit them?

3.) Why didn’t, when the planes hit the buildings, knock out the pre-planted explosives?

4.) Why didn’t the instant fires from the plane crashes ignite any pre-planted explosives within seconds or just a few minutes?

5.) Why didn’t the instant fires from the plane crashes burn through the wires that had to connect any pre-planted explosives rendering them useless?

6.) Why didn’t any of the thousands of employees of the WTC Towers report anyone cutting concrete and steel supports, drilling holes in concrete and planting explosives and running wires in the days before 9/11? It takes weeks of prep by many, many people do demolish even a small building. These buildings were teaming with employees even in all hours of the night. Yet no one saw a thing in either building.

And do you believe any of the following were “Inside Jobs?”

1.) Was the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis an “Inside Job”?
2.) Was the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 an “Inside Job”?
3.) Was the bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Lebanon an “Inside Job”?
4.) Was the TWA hijacking in 1985 an “Inside Job”?
5.) Was the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 and “Inside Job”?
6.) Were the shootings outside CIA Headquarters in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
7.) Was the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
8.) Was the attempted assassination of (the first) President Bush in 1993 an “Inside Job”?
9.) Was the attack on U.S. Military Headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995 an “Inside Job”?
10.) Was the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 an “Inside Job”?
11.) Was the Empire State Building sniper shootings in 1997 an “Inside Job”?
12.) Was the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998 an “Inside Job”?
13.) Was the attack on U.S.S. Cole in 2000 an “Inside Job”?
14.) Were the Beltway sniper shootings in 2002 an “Inside Job?”
15.) Was the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 an “Inside Job”?

Why were White House and Pentagon officials (among others) warned not to fly in the days leading up to 911?

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th—before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft. I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation. The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft. These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

The State Department issued a worldwide advisory on September 7, 2001, warning that Americans “may be the target of a terrorist threat.” The raised concerns for Americans abroad, but made no mention of any possible attack on U.S. soil.

Why was Bush allowed to sit in a Florida school and read a kids book while America was under attack? (why wasn’t he whisked away?)

The school reading was already scheduled. He was in the middle of it when word came down about the attack. His handlers realized that the televised event was live and whisking him away would make him look weak and panicked. And he WAS whisked away, and we all HATED him for it, until he came out of hiding under his own volition so that he wouldn’t look weak.

How did Bush see the first plane hit the WTC on TV the day of 911 when the first crash wasn’t broadcast until September 12th?

This seems absolutely false to me, and I refuse to believe it until I see some documentation. Furthermore, he is the POTUS. I would expect him to have access to classified confiscated videos.

Why were plans to invade Afghanistan ready to go long before 911 happened? And why were troops mobilized around Afghanistan days before the attack?

A fellow named Osama Bin Laden had a world-wide network of terrorists who had bombed several of our embassies, a battleship, and the… World Trade Center. Remember that? Where are you getting this reference? Clinton fired cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps. Is that what you mean?

Why hasn’t the Pentagon released more and better footage of Flight 77 slamming into it’s side?

**** Why would you want to see that? Why don’t you go apologize to the families who lost loved ones on that plane crash? Innocent people died in one of the most documented attacks in history, and you need to see more video of it. I want to see video of one *** person claiming to witness a cruise missile… or one cruise missile operator claiming to fire on his own damn country.

Why was there molten metal under the debris from the three WTC buildings, namely WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane?

Burning fires under a collapsed building = moltent metal.

Why has no other steel framed building in history collapsed from fire damage?

(borrowed response) There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor’s central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the “Firsts” but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn’t take those factors into account.

Why did BBC report on the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it fell?

Why do you believe that this is evidence of anything? How can you live with yourself after you realize how insulting and disrespectful this conspiracy is under the light of illogical evidence such as this???

They are in on the conspiracy! The 9/11 Commission Report, formally titled Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is the official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Why were warnings made by British, French, Russian, Iranian and American intelligence agencies ignored?

You mean the specific warnings of when, how, where, who, and why? I’d like to see those.

Why did the government release a fake tape of Osama Bin Laden taking credit for the attacks? (video and voice analysts have proven its falsity)

Bin Laden has taken credit for these attacks several times, and he has never denied it. He is a TERRORIST WHO HATES AMERICA! I wouldn’t put it past the CIA to fake a tape, so that we can be justified in an attack, but that video doesn’t prove anything- Mr. Don’t-want-to-speculate. Bin Laden is a man who runs an organization with camps dedicated to teaching misguided muslims to attack America. Like the same muslims who bombed WTC the FIRST TIME!

Why weren’t standard emergency procedures followed by the Airforce during the attack?

They are idiots, and there were wargames occuring at the time. The president gave permission to shoot down the airliners, but the messenger didn’t pass it on for fear of the wrong jet being downed accidentally.

What were all these explosions that people reported hearing prior to and during the collapses?

Which reports? Who? What were the circumstances. I’m standing in the first WTC, and I hear the other one get hit…or the other one fall down, and I say I heard an explosion. Cite your sources. Be specific. You do, of course, realize that besides the random testimony of a confused individual experiencing a chaotic day, you have no proof of any detonations from those towers. These were towers that were hit at 500 MPH by passenger jets, and you are scientifically confused about explosions???

Come on! You just wasted my time with all that crap I had to answer. You should be ashamed for believing this crap. Ashamed!

Hey guys! Sorry for the delayed response. I just got back from a camping trip in Osoyoos, BC, the only desert in Canada! It was pretty hot out there too, hovering around 40 celcius (104 F) the whole time! I’m glad I can jump right back into the discussion with you again. You raise some good arguements and I must say that I greatly appreciate your taking the time to respond to my statements and offer your own questions and opinions. Debate is the great whetting stone of the intellect. But back to 9/11…

I’ve compiled a good number of links to news stories that, taken together, provide a huge case against the veracity of official 9/11 story and can hopefully get us asking the right questions concerning those who are really responsible for the attacks. The titles in bold signify what aspect of the official story the subsequent links pertain to. Note: most of the articles provided are catalogued and linked at http://www.prisonplanet.com (don’t let the name deter you, it’s an excellent news source)

If you’d prefer to watch some good 9/11 documentaries here are several recommendations:

This article seems innocuous by itself but it forces the question: If the Pentagon knew about the impending attack why the need for Bush and co to feign ignorance about it when questioned by the press? Indeed they received many more warnings in the weeks and days leading up to the event.

With the Pentagon supposedly on alert during the weeks leading up to 9/11 wouldn’t you think they would be able to translate a Terrorist’s Arabic message immediately upon interception, especially considering that it specified an event occuring the very next day! But it gets better…

This Iranian man who phoned in the warning should have been checked up on by the FBI as it turned out that “[h]e belong[ed] to the Pakistani-Afghan network that trains Osama Bin Laden’s soldiers.” He also had “comprehensive documentation about Boeing aircraft and flight manuals.” If the government had used such information they could have easily screened all Boeing aircraft for suspects and/or have executed more disciplined luggage checks.

First of all, why did these gentlemen receive such messages and secondly, why didn’t the FBI evacuate the buildings? They already were in alert-mode and had had numerous other warnings to go on. Criminal negligence would be an understatement.

[url=http://prisonplanet.com/fox_news_series_on_israeli_spying_in_the_us.html]December 2001
In mid December, Fox News Channel ran a blockbuster series on Israeli spying in the US contending that Israeli intelligence had advanced information about the Sept. 11 attacks before the fact.[/url]

[url=http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/180404_norad_had_drills.html]In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.[/url]

This plan, known as Project Bojinka was discovered by Phillipine Police in ‘95 and shared with the US years before 9/11. So when Bush and co. feign ignorance about terrorist attacks via hijacked planes, you best be sure, Bush and co. are lying. (see article) and again from CNN

[url=http://www.prisonplanet.com/probe_us_knew_of_jet_terror_pilots.htm]Details of intelligence about terrorist use of airplanes could embarrass the White House. After questions were raised in the spring about what President Bush knew about terrorist threats before Sept. 11, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the threats were vague and uncorroborated.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,” Rice said then. “Had this president known a plane would be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.”

Hill outlined 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible terrorist use of airplanes as weapons, beginning in 1994 and ending with the Nairobi plot in August 2001.[/url]

So, now that we’ve cleared up the part about foreknowledge, we can move on to some more evidence…

Here’s his exact quote: “And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon…”

Well, since we know the “terrorists” didn’t shoot down the plane, who did? I admit, it does seem odd that the culprits would shoot down their own hijacked plane but is it not possible that one of the fighter jets sent out to engage F93 could have either accidently or intentionally gone against Cheney’s orders and tried to play hero? Or perhaps he was ordered to bring down the plane for an as of yet uncertain reason. But the story’s not over…

The Daily Mirror cites other factors bolstering the case for a possible shootdown of UA Flight 93:

“The U.S. government insists the plane exploded on impact, yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away.

“Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.

“UA93 was identified as a hijack at 9:16 am. At 9:35 am three F-16s were ordered to ‘protect the White House at all costs’ when it turned towards the capital. At 10:06 am it crashed at Shanksville, less than 10 minutes flying time from Washington.

“Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind - suggesting the plane had been holed.

“The FBI insists there was no military plane in the area, but at 9:22 am a sonic boom - caused by a supersonic jet - was picked up by an earthquake monitor in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles away from Shanksville.”

No they weren’t pulled from the rubble, they were never on the planes.
The FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 containing names, photographs, aliases and other information is seriously flawed. They have used these peoples names and made claims based on the fact they were pilots and other supposedly incriminating evidence and yet they were not involved. Places of birth, birthdays and other personal details were displayed on news throughout the world.

The FBI still lists these men as suspected hijackers who were killed during the terrorist assault, this is absurd. If this is the quality of the evidence they can present it is no wonder the public cannot see the rest.

7 of the 19 believed hijackers named are still alive.

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi
“It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened.” - Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20th

Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi “are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.” The Saudi Arabian embassy told The Orlando Sentinel.

Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

“..there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. ” - BBC 23rd September 2001

Waleed Alshehri (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)

A sixth person on the FBI’s list, Saudi national Waleed Alshehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Alshehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline. On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

“His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. ” - Daily Trust 24th September 2001

“He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco.” - Telegraph

“Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.” - BBC 23rd September 2001

Abdul aziz Alomari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot) 2 men with same name cobbled together into terrorist

Omari Number 1
Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media.

“a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ­ as well as being dead ­ and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.” - Independent 17th September 2001

Omari Number 2
” a Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdulaziz Alomari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Alomari says he informed police of the theft.” - ABCNews

“I couldn’t believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.” - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

“The name [listed by the FBI] is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York,” Abdulaziz Alomari told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

“Alomari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case” - New York Times

“Saudi Embassy officials in Washington have challenged his identity. They say a Saudi electrical engineer named Abdulaziz Alomari had his passport and other papers stolen in 1996 in Denver when he was a student and reported the theft to police there at the time. ” - BBC

“Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months.” - Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 [translate]

Saeed Alghamdi (Flight 93) (Trained Pilot)

“Saeed Alghamdi is one of three hijackers that US officials have said are linked to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network. “- BBC

No BBC! Mr. Al-Ghamdi is still alive and well and at his job for Tunis Air

“I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks.” - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

“Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months.” - Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 [translate]

“..not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.” - Saudi embassy

Salem Alhazmi (Flight 77)

“Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.” - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

Ahmed Alnami (Flight 93)

“I’m still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.” He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been “stolen” and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his “possible residence” was Delray Beach in Florida. ” - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

Flight 11 (North Tower)
The BBC has reported that the transcript of a phone call made by Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic controls shows that the flight attendant gave the seat numbers occupied by the hijackers, seat numbers which were NOT the seats of the men the FBI claimed were responsible for the hijacking.

Others accused of being involed

Ameer Bukhari
“Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year. ” - CNN Correction

To get onto the flight legally, each passenger had to have a ticket with his or her name on it. Each passenger had to present a photo ID to the check-in agent. The check-in agent was supposed to look at the picture and the person, and then make a judgment. Was it the same person? If the mandated procedure was followed, the check-in agent decided that the ticket’s name, the photo ID’s name, the photo, and the ID-holder’s face all matched. If there was any doubt, the check-in agent was supposed to ask for some other form of identification. If there was none, the person was not allowed to board the plane.

No Arab names on the passenger lists. Though the use of American aliases has not been mentioned by anyone. That means the terrorists boarded the planes surreptitiously and were not noticed until the planes had taken flight. Any ideas?

[url=http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/]He looks very different in the confession video. He much heavier than
earlier. Then, soon after (Dec 7) he looks extremely thin and sickly. Is this 9/11 “Confession” from years ago? Is this even bin Laden?[/url]
also see http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

So on the one hand Bush faked the Osama video, but then he had to turn right around and manipulate the translation of what the actor said after the fact? Why didn’t Bush just have the actor say what Bush wanted him to say in the first place?

And while I appreciate all the work you went through in your above posts, I don’t believe you answered any of my questions. Could you do that? Thanks!